A urinalysis is constitutional if conducted for a valid medical
purpose. Mil. R. Evid. 312(f)
- United States v. Fitten, 42 M.J. 179 (C.A.A.F. 1995). Forced catheterization of accused did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) where it was medically necessary to test for dangerous drugs because of accused’s unruly and abnormal behavior. Diversion of a part of the urine obtained from medical
test to drug laboratory to build case against accused was ermissible. But see United States v. Stevenson, 66 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2008), which overrules Fitten “. . . to the extent that [it] . . . stand[s] for the proposition that there is a de minimus exception to the Fourth Amendment or to Mil. R. Evid. 312.”
- In the Army, most medical tests may only be used for limited purposes. AR 600-85, para. 10-12, and Table 10-1.